Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Puertasaurus reuili - REVISED by Paleo-King Puertasaurus reuili - REVISED by Paleo-King
FORGOTTEN GIANTS: Species #1 - Puertasaurus reuili

*Now rescaled and heavily revised with shorter torso and longer tail to reflect more accurately the spinal proportions based on Novas et. al., 2005 and also on related genera* Limbs have been thickened and straightened from the previous version. (The Giganotosaurus is also revised, ironically with a longer torso than before.)

The recently discovered mega-titanosaur Puertasaurus reuili, a giant to dwarf the giants - rigorously scaled, in high-fidelity TRIPLE axial view, for the very first time!

This is an update of the very first high-fidelity reconstruction of Puertasaurus ever done - the first version was featured on the awesome sauropod blog SV-POW: [link]
This ground-breaking reconstruction (in its earlier form [link]) also inspired Vladimir Nikolov's excellent painting of the animal [link] , Teratophoneus's drawing, [link] , as well as Rexisto's titanosaur silhouettes [link] on Mesozoico.com and Roy van Hees' 3D walk cycle of the animal on youtube: [link] .

This reconstruction is also the basis of my collaborative work with Chris Masna [link] on this phenomenal rendered version: [link]
In-progress pics: [link]

A hypothetical diagram approximating the likely shape and size of the dorsal vertebrae is included - the torso is considerably shorter than in the previous version. Missing portions of the known fossils are also shaded. Giganotosaurus (though it lived earlier) is included for scale as it was the largest meat-eater. The largest predator of Puertasaurus's fauna was Orkoraptor, an allosauroid supposedly similar in size to Giganotosaurus.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

About Puertasaurus:

Taxonomy: Sauropoda; Macronaria; Titanosauria; Lognkosauria
Time & Place: Latest Cretaceous (Maastrichtian epoch, 69 mya - ?), Pari Aike formation, southern Argentina.
Dimensions: ~38m (125 ft.) long, ~110 tons

Known only from a lower neck vertebra, a front dorsal, and two as-of-yet unpublished tail vertebrae, this creature was colossal even compared to other giant titanosaurs. It was even larger than Argentinosaurus [link] , and so far only Alamosaurus seems to have equaled or exceeded it in size. Puertasaurus is a very late-evolving member of Lognkosauria, a strange family of intermediate titanosaurs with extremely massive vertebrae with massive processes, and short but extremely wide rib cages.

Puertasaurus probably had the widest and most voluminous rib cage of any animal known to science - although the ribs are missing, the huge width and depth of the wing-like transverse processes of the 2nd dorsal indicates they supported an unusually wide rib cage, perhaps as wide as 7.3 meters (24 ft). When alive, the whole animal probably weighed well over 100 tons. A particularly odd feature of this species is its unusual neck shape - wider than it is deep, and with very squat centra, this design made possible a downright insane range of vertical motion, even perhaps leaning the head back past vertical, but also likely limited horizontal/lateral neck motion to some degree. The head and mouth likely would have been very wide as well.

Puertasaurus appeared in southern Argentina some 69 million years ago, long after the first Lognkosaurians, which date back to the mid-Cretaceous - in fact, it's one of the last sauropods to have lived, and certainly the last of the truly gigantic ones.

Pencil on paper, 11x17" 2009. Digitally revised, 2010 & 2011

References:
Novas, Fernando E.; Salgado, Leonardo; Calvo, Jorge; and Agnolin, Federico (2005). "Giant titanosaur (Dinosauria, Sauropoda) from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia". Revisto del Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales, n.s. 7 (1): 37–41.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconjeda45:
Jeda45 Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2015
There's some new evidence that the Pari Aike rocks could be as old as the Cenomanian, not Maastrichtian at all. A tuff layer from the Pari Aike formation--which is now considered to be part of the Mata Amarilla formation--has been dated to around 97 million years ago. 

Orkoraptor is a megaraptoran, and thus is likely to be either an allosauroid or tyrannosauroid, but the problem's not yet resolved. The largest known megaraptorans or megaraptoran relatives are around 10-11 meters and 4 tonnes, Orkoraptor was probably only around 6 meters and half a tonne.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2015  Professional Traditional Artist
Not knowing what exact spot in the Pari Aike formation Puertasaurus was found in, it's hard to tell its age until Novas et. al. release more info.

As for Orkoraptor... we have much the same problem with regards to lack of evidence.  I'm not too familiar with the notion of Magaraptorids being tyrannosauroids, but on the face of it I don't see that as being very likely.
Reply
:iconjeda45:
Jeda45 Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2015
I agree that it's not clear that megaraptorans are tyrannosauroids, but recently-discovered new material of Megaraptor itself is remarkably tyrannosauroid-like. Past studies on megaraptorans often didn't adequately compare them to coelurosaurs, assuming a priori that they were likely to be "carnosaurs".

Even though we don't know where in the Pari Aike Formation Puertasaurus was discovered, this paper seems fairly confident that none of the Pari Aike Formation was Campanian-age or younger, so an age within 97-83 Ma is most likely.
Reply
:iconsameerprehistorica:
SameerPrehistorica Featured By Owner Sep 18, 2014  Hobbyist
As usual different people put different estimates for some extinct animals.I'm going to make one.Your Puertasaurus use to have much longer neck and it stands equal to Sauroposeidon where as in few images i noted a somewhat long neck but not much longer.I will slightly increase its neck length than Argentinosaurus.I have seen that vertebrae picture of both Argentinosaurus and Puertsaurus placed together.I just think that both of them are somewhat equal in size.
             
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Sep 14, 2014
"The largest predator of Puertasaurus's fauna was Orkoraptor, an allosauroid supposedly similar in size to Giganotosaurus."
Did you mean to write "Allosaurus" or "Neovenator" (even those actually seem bigger)?
Novas et al. 2008 estimate Orkoraptor at 6-7m in lenght (admittedly based on comparison with very distantly related animals). I’m sure someone would have noticed if it was among the biggest known theropods :D (Big Grin) 
Reply
:iconsauropodomorph:
sauropodomorph Featured By Owner Apr 30, 2014
Hope you don't mind. A colleage of mine who has built many skeletal reconstructions of sauropods 1:1 scale [fibreglas] and I, have gotten together and wondered about the feasibility of building this sauropod on a 1:1 scale [fleshed version]. This is not for a museum. It's a private project and we would like to ask your permission to reproduce your detailed reconstruction for a Kickstarter project of ours. Let us know if this is alright with you.

Super reconstruction. We fell head over heels in love with it.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Send me the details in a PM. (some background on your friend and his work, the end goal of the project, the terms of the private project like commissions, location, etc.) Thanks, I look forward to talking about this.
Reply
:iconchristina1969:
christina1969 Featured By Owner Apr 25, 2014
Nice, but Giganotosaurus not would be taller (about 3.9-4 m tall at the head or at the hips)?
Reply
:iconmark0731:
mark0731 Featured By Owner Apr 17, 2014
This puertasaurus is too large. More recent reconstructions says a the length is only 30 m.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Apr 22, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
They assume more conservative proportions like Malawisaurus. You're probably referencing Scott Hartman. If Puertasaurus was built like Malawisaurus then this would be true. However, there are three reasons why I don't accept that conclusion.

1. Puertasaurus is NOT Malawisaurus. It's a much bigger animal, and more derived. Comparing Puertasaurus to Malawisaurus is like comparing Rapetosaurus to Epachthosaurus - one is a basal jack-of-all-trades, the other is a larger derived dedicated high-browser with a much longer neck. (Yes Rapetosaurus was larger than Epachthosaurus - an adult Epachthosaurus was similar in size to a juvenile Rapetosaurus).

2. We don't have much of Puertasaurus. Thus assuming the cervical recovered really IS C9, it is a good estimate for an average cervical length in a neck that may have had 14-16 vertebrae. This results in a very long neck, proportionally far longer than that of Malawisaurus. It makes sense, remember Puertasaurus was a much bigger animal and bigger sauropods tend to be high-browsers with a very large feeding envelope and long necks.

3. The size debate always swings between extremes. You may have seen my old reconstruction of Puertasaurus, which was much longer. This is a moderate estimate here. Hartman's is very conservative. Who's to say one is more correct than the other, unless you know about the family and the anatomy very picky specifics? Hartman restores both Futalognkosaurus and Puertasaurus to look like Malawisaurus. But Malawisaurus is a distant cousin, and rather conservative in proportions - a bit like the Camarasaurus of the titanosaurs. It would make more sense to use closer, larger relatives like Mendozasaurus, Traukutitan, and Drusilasaura to fill in the gaps. This would result in larger body sizes anyway, even before you take Puertasaurus' neck length into account.
Reply
:iconbrolyeuphyfusion9500:
brolyeuphyfusion9500 Featured By Owner Jun 7, 2015
"Puertasaurus is NOT Malawisaurus. It's a much bigger animal, and more derived. Comparing Puertasaurus to Malawisaurus is like comparing Rapetosaurus to Epachthosaurus - one is a basal jack-of-all-trades, the other is a larger derived dedicated high-browser with a much longer neck. (Yes Rapetosaurus was larger than Epachthosaurus - an adult Epachthosaurus was similar in size to a juvenile Rapetosaurus)."

Actually, if the phylogenetic tree in the Dreadnoughtus description paper is anything to go by, Malawisaurus is somewhat more derived than longkosaurians.
Reply
:iconmark0731:
mark0731 Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2014
OK. Anyway, your puertasaurus is awesome. :)
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Thanks :D Greatly appreciated.
It is after all THE pioneering hi-fi Puertasaurus reconstruction that inspired all the others :)
Reply
:iconvasix:
vasix Featured By Owner Edited Jan 9, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Since I really am curious about knowing, in this case, how correct are all those 15-meter estimates of Rapetosaurus that keep popping up? 
Reply
:iconfragillimus335:
Fragillimus335 Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Looks like you got your very own copycat! adictamente.blogspot.com/2013/…
Puertasaurus looks very familiar!
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Feb 26, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Wow talk about lame lack of originality. Nobody's even heard of this guy and he is ripping off my work as well as Greg Paul, Julius Csotonyi, John Sibbick, David Peters, Luis Rey, Raul Martin, John Conway, and who knows how many other people. He's lucky he hasn't left Barcelona, if he were in the USA I'd sue his arsch 10k for every dinosaur he copied without my permission or acknowledgement. 90% of his dinosaurs are such obvious frauds, I can easily tell who he ripped them off from. Totally disgusting.

I thought Greg Paul was just blowing smoke when he claimed people were ripping off his work in large quantities, now I realize I was wrong. Wonder what the Spanish copyright laws are like. If I can't sue him in Spain, I'll ruin him on the net. This is getting a blog blast for sure.
Reply
:iconriver-rex:
River-rex Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2014  Student Artist
Well I'd people are ripping off your work, that just means your work is really good!
Reply
:iconfragillimus335:
Fragillimus335 Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Just thought I'd let you know. It's practically a 100% copy!
Reply
:iconcommonhousegecko:
CommonHouseGecko Featured By Owner Sep 8, 2013
That bay just screams to built military fortifications on its back.

Carthaginians elephants would be ashamed to show their face.
Reply
:iconteratophoneus:
Teratophoneus Featured By Owner Oct 16, 2013
lol
Reply
:iconalgoroth:
Algoroth Featured By Owner Aug 26, 2013  Professional General Artist
With all due respect, after looking a pretty damned fair amount at your reconstructions and restorations of a bunch of diverse dinosaurs, as well as the work in that vein of Qilong, Gregory S. Paul, Palaeozoologist, David Peters, and Scott Hartman, I've come to the conclusion that most of the work done on a lot of the largest dinosaurs carries little to no more validity than my own pics of dinosaurs. I admire all your hard work and salute all of you for it, but a fair number of these dinos are put together from so many different specimens and even extrapolated from different genuses, never mind species, that they are almost as much the product of a science based species of fantasy as my own work.

Even species of which you have virtually complete remains of come out looking wildly differently from artist to artist. How can we claim someone is correct factually when we don't truly know? My criteria for accuracy comes from the bones, many times from well-drawn skeletals, and the flesh from the living animals the closest in shape and life style to the extinct animals. Thus, I often come to some different conclusions than most modern paleo-artists do, especially in the legs. Why? I simply cannot conceive that a living dinosaur had half the flesh on its bones, proportionately, than an animal less than a quarter its mass--assuming the LOWER end of modern mass estimates. 

Why should a tyrannosaur or a gorgosaur or a (put name of huge pizza eater here) have much skinnier legs than a chicken? It seems a lot of muscular restorations for theropods in the legs use such birds as flamingos and herons for models--look at the often ludicrous slenderness of theropod lower limbs in many paleo-artists' restorations for examples--why do that when the proportions of their bones and putative life styles are so different? 

Scientists look at attachment points, study bird, lizard, and croc muscles to map out the probable muscle paths in the living dino, then come up quite often with conclusions not matching even fairly closely with living analogs. Why? 
Reply
:iconcarnosauria:
Carnosauria Featured By Owner Jun 25, 2013
But the vertebrae are not too long?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jun 26, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Which vertebrae? cervical, dorsal, or caudal?
Reply
:iconcarnosauria:
Carnosauria Featured By Owner Jun 27, 2013
Well, the back vert were 2 meters wide, while the back vert were 1.68 m. Titanosaur dorsals tend to stay about the same length down the body,but you made them get much longer as the go back. Only a osservation, this work is still good :).
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jun 27, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
In lognkosauria the front dorsals are actually shorter than the back ones. This is true in Malawisaurus, Futalognkosaurus, Pitekunsaurus, and probably would be true for Puertasaurus and Mendozasaurus if rear dorsals were discovered.
Reply
:iconstuchlik:
Stuchlik Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2014
I'm not shure... Malawisaurus and Pitekunsaurus are not Lognkosaur, any papers. Futalognkosaurus first dorsal is 43 cm long, second 28,7 cm, but last dorsal is only 28 cm in paper.

Pitekunsaurus I'm not shure but we don't have dorsals only one know?

Sorry for my bad English

Best:)
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Actually there are 2 or 3 dorsals known for Pitekunsaurus I'm pretty sure. They look like typical lognkosaurian dorsals.

Malawisaurus isn't exactly a lognkosaur but it IS their closest relative immediately outside lognkosauria.

The Futalognkosaurus paper had a number of measurement inconsistencies, so my current model of that animal is based on something like 30 different attempts at cross-scaling as new photos became available on internet blogs. It's literally the toughest skeletal I've ever done (not just because it was the first, but also because the data was so unreliable and needed so many corrections).
Reply
:iconstuchlik:
Stuchlik Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2014
Mybe but any questions. 

Second dorsal Puertasaurus have 31 cm long (without condyle ball)  Futalognkosaurus D2 have 28,7 cm. That mean that Puertasaurus have only 9% larger torso and mybe ~20% long neck. For example Hartman Puertasaurus have 27-28 m long and Futalognkosaurus 23 m. I'm not sure that any titanosaur are longer than 30 m (100 feet). For example Alamosaurus in perot have only 84 feet, when Hartman scaled giant tibia get 28-30 m long, Argentinosaurus could be similar region. Wedel estimtes neck 9 m long.
I think
1 m head, 9 m neck, ~4,2 m long dorsals colum (when I measure 6 dorsals and compare other to Opisthocoelicaudia) 1,35 m sacrum and mybe over 12 m tail. Not more than 27-28 m region too. 

What do you think?:)
Best:)
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
I think you are doing conservative estimates, which is okay, but I don't agree because most titanosaurs didn't have the proportions of Opisthocoelicaudia or Saltasaurus.  I also find Hartman's figures and images a bit too compact but this is all down to the fact that he has ZERO cartilage approximation factor, and also tends to use the bones as they are, i.e. not accounting for weathering and crushing yet still smoothing out the outlines as if this was their natural shape in life.

With animals as incomplete as Argentinosaurus and Puertasaurus the exact size is anyone's guess. My restorations give an idea how a mid-range estimation could have worked.

I am pretty confident that Futalognkosaurus was NOT as small as 23m but I suspect the tail was smaller than how I currently have it restored so I will have to work on this. Perhaps 25-27m may work best, but I have to study the tail vertebrae photos more closely (the referred distal tail material was never published but there are a few photos of it). Hartman's take on the neck is a bit understated, there's no "give" between the bones for a cartilage surface. The way Futalognkosaurus's neck vertebrae are shaped, they would virtually lock into a stiff immovable rod if the cartilage was at Hartman levels of skimpy. So it should be a be longer, if nothing else then for the slight extension due to cartilage disks. Also I think he got the shapes wrong, a bit too short compared to what the photos indicate (the bones have gone through some wear/erosion too). But that's a minor issue.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icongrroselli:
grroselli Featured By Owner Jun 10, 2013
can't we all just agree it's frickin huge
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Jun 26, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Yes... Honestly I don't worry about whether Puertasaurus, Argentinosaurus, or Alamosaurus was the biggest. Or something else entirely. We only have a few fragments of "adult" specimens for each one, and these may not have even been maximum size (and whether they were really adults is debatable too since no shoulder material has been found to see if the coracoid was fully fused to the scapula or not.)
Reply
:icondilophosaurus97:
Dilophosaurus97 Featured By Owner Jun 8, 2013
If the largest Theropod hardly reached to the knee, this was pretty damn big :D!

Great job :).
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Jul 29, 2013
Except for the fact that Giganotosaurus was not the largest theropod ;)
Reply
:icongiganotosaurinae:
Giganotosaurinae Featured By Owner Sep 3, 2013
Giganotosaurus was still the largest know cursorial Theropod. 
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Sep 3, 2013
Mapusaurus and Carcharodontosaurus may have been bigger. The same can be said fr at least one pr two ichnotaxa.
Reply
:icongiganotosaurinae:
Giganotosaurinae Featured By Owner Sep 3, 2013
Ichnotaxon? Bad evidence. Carcharodontosaurus was likely smaller than Giganotosaurus, Mapusaurus may have been longer, but Giganotosaurus is the heavier due to it's more heavily built.
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2013
Is there any evidence for the heavier built, or C. saharicus being smaller, or do you even know the ichnotaxa in question?

For some reason among the most endurant myths in palaeo-zoology is "ichnotaxon=worthless=can be ignored"
Reply
:icongiganotosaurinae:
Giganotosaurinae Featured By Owner Sep 8, 2013
Mapusaurus femoral was about the 83 % the size of Gig's one.

Giganotosaurus has a skull smaller than that of Giganotosaurus.

19IGR/16IGR can be deformed (as Ceratopipes, originally think to be 14,4 m).
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Sep 9, 2013
And Mapusaurus femur is not even close to being the biggest specimen. The biggest fibula is 3% bigger, a pubic shaft even 10% bigger than the corresponding parts in G. carolinii. I think you meant to say M. roseae had the smaller skull, for which there is no evidence. There is little evidence whatsoever for the two of them being very differently proportioned either.
Mapusaurus basically is a Giganotosaurus known from a bigger sample of specimens.

Concerning the Iouaridène tracks, described as the largest theropod tracks in the world, do you have any evidence for these ichnites being enlarged or is this just your guess (if so, it sounds like the stereotypical "let's just ignore that ichnotaxon"-excuse, no offence)? From what I have read the chance of a theropod track being enlarged through deformation is not higher than it becoming smaller, more likely lower actually.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icongiganotosaurinae:
Giganotosaurinae Featured By Owner Sep 8, 2013
Sorry, I meant 

Carcharodontosaurus has a skull smaller than that of Giganotosaurus.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icongigadino96:
Gigadino96 Featured By Owner May 25, 2013
Nice, but I thought that Spinosaurus was the largest terrestrial carnivore.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner May 25, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Are we actually talking about Spinosaurus itself, or just guesstimates based on a weathered jaw fragment? :XD:
Reply
:icongigadino96:
Gigadino96 Featured By Owner May 26, 2013
Giganotosaurus would not be the largest terrestrial carnivore. We have a specimen of Mapusaurus 2% larger than MUPCv-95, the largest Giganotosaurus know, and given that this specimen is 14 meters long at most, would Mapusaurus to 14.3 meters. Then at most would be the second (even though it was more heavily built than Mapusaurus).
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner May 26, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
How complete is this giant Mapusaurus?
Reply
:icongigadino96:
Gigadino96 Featured By Owner May 26, 2013
It is very incomplete - only a tree pelvic or something. However, if you consider MUPCv-95, is right to consider also this specimen.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner May 27, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Well both are incomplete so both need to be scaled from better specimens and that my friend is where the whole scaling mess comes from. Mapusaurus may have been bigger but I have never seen photos or scale drawing of the larger specimen In any case the size difference wouldn't have been significant enough to affect this image by any major degree. Puertasaurus still makes both animals look tiny.
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Jul 29, 2013
MCF-PVPH-108.145 is a pubic shaft, and its size doesn't seem equivocal. Sadly, there doesn't seem to be a drawing or photograph of it. But neither is there of two of the vertebrae assigned to Puertasaurus :P

This is what Coria and Currie stated on the specimen:
"The minimum shaft dimensions of MCF-PVPH-108.145 are
7.5 by 10 cm, which is 10% greater than those in
the holotype of Giganotosaurus. This suggests that
the specimen represents the largest individual of
Mapusaurus n. gen. from the bonebed."

No worse than the biggest Giganotosaurus, but it seems to have a more fixed (and slightly higher) size figure. Individual/species variation can never be ruled out, but it can go in both directions and we have no basis to assume it here.

btw how large is your Giganotosaurus supposed to be?
Reply
:iconsameerprehistorica:
SameerPrehistorica Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2013  Hobbyist
110 tons is average or maximum weight for Puertasaurus ? It should be average....right ? I mean,Blue whale averages the same 110 tons and the maximum at 150 tons or so.
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Actually adult blue whales can reach 200 tons. And the other thing that makes the comparison pretty moot is that blue whales are migratory filter feeders that can gain/lose half of their body weight depending on the season (feeding season versus mating season).

So a blue whale can weigh 100 tons in summer and 200 tons in winter... its average would be 150 tons, not the max.

That said, Puertasaurus probably DID outweigh most if not all other species of whales. As least given the sizes they reach today after commercial whaling has killed off most individuals whose genes predisposed them to high-percentile sizes for their species.
Reply
:icontheropod1:
theropod1 Featured By Owner Jul 29, 2013
The average weight for Blue whales is far lower than that. I don't find the study, but I recall it was below 90t. Several large sauropods, from puertasaurus to the plagne Trackmaker probably significantly outsize it on average, and some could equal it even at maximum.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
  • Art Print
  • Canvas
  • Photo




Details

Submitted on
July 8, 2011
Image Size
2.0 MB
Resolution
4712×2808
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
20,377 (9 today)
Favourites
185 (who?)
Comments
168
×